Legal News & Views

If a provision bars a court from “hearing and deciding” a suit on some contingency, does that mean the suit itself is not maintainable? This was an interesting question before the Supreme Court in Public Trust Shri Geeta Satsang Bhawan vs Nand Lal. Section 29 of the Rajasthan Public Trust Act reads: “No suit to enforce a right on behalf of a public trust which is required to be registered under this Act but has not been so registered shall be heard or decided in any Court.” In the instant case, the trial court had heard and decided the suit by unregistered trust, while high court, allowing the appeal, dismissed the suit in limine, terming it ‘not maintainable’ in view of Section 29 of the Act. An apex court bench comprising Justice RK Agrawal and Justice AM Sapre observed that the bar applies for “hearing and deciding” a suit, and not in filing the suit and it could be filed by the unregistered trust but it will neither be heard nor decided by the court unless and until the Trust...

Just seven months after the operationalization of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), it has been tested by the apex court. The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a settlement can be considered and a case can be withdrawn after insolvency proceedings have started against a company. It was hearing a case concerning corporate debtor Lokhandwala Kataria Construction Pvt. Ltd on an application filed by financial creditor Nisus Finance and Investment Manager LLP. The Mumbai bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 15 June initiated a corporate insolvency resolution process against the debtor. Later, the company and the creditor approached the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) saying that the two had settled the dispute and that some of the dues had already been paid. NCLAT said on 13 July that under the IBC 2016, a case can be withdrawn before the admission of an insolvency case, and not after that. The parties then filed a plea with the Supreme C...

In Satwant Singh vs Malkeet Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that while accepting the apology of a cop who was punished for contempt by the Punjab and Haryana High Court for arresting a man on anticipatory bail, the Supreme Court observed that the court is bound to explain as to why the apology tendered by contemnor should not be accepted. A bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice R Banumathi, setting aside the high court order, remarked: “Apology is one of the defences in the case of a civil contempt and the Court is bound to explain as to why the apology should not be accepted.” Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/court-bound-explain-apology-tendered-contemnors-cant-accepted-sc-read-judgment/

The Supreme Court, in Parminder Singh vs Gurpreet Singh, has observed that if there are concurrent findings of fact by the trial court, first and second appellate courts, such findings are binding on the Supreme Court. The trial court, while allowing a suit for specific performance, had granted specific performance of the agreement to the plaintiff in exercise of its discretionary powers. The first and second appellate court had upheld the trial court order. The said concurrent findings were assailed before the apex court.... Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/concurrent-findings-fact-trial-court-appellate-courts-binding-supreme-court-sc-read-judgment/

In Hameed Kunju VS Nazim, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said that eviction matters should be given priority by courts at all stages of litigation, especially in cases where the landlord has sought eviction for his bonafide needs, the Supreme Court has said. The apex court observed that the object of the rent law was to ensure speedy disposal of eviction cases between the landlord and the tenant and expressed hope that due attention would be paid by all courts in deciding such matters.

In Mumbai Port Trust Vs M/s. Shri Lakshmi Steels, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Board of Trustees of the Ports, which are creations of a statute, are entitled to charge demurrage and other charges from the importer even in respect of those periods during which the importer was unable to clear goods from the premises of the Board, for no fault or negligence on the part of the importer. The Boards were entitled to charge demurrage from the importer even when the importer was unable the clear the goods because of the detention thereof by the Customs authorities, which detention may later on have been found to be unjustified.

In K.S. Rajesh Vs. K.M. Basheer, the Kerela High Court held that under NI Act, when cheque is returned by the bank with the endorsement “No account, account closed”, offence is attracted where the bank account is closed prior to the drawal of the cheque. The Hon'ble court further held that the Apex Court in Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2012) 13 SCC 375 has held that even when a cheque is returned for any other reasons such as “account closed, payment stopped, refer to drawer, signature does not match”, etc., in each case Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act will be attracted and that insufficiency of funds as envisaged in Sec.138 of the NI Act is a genus and dishonour for reason of “accounts closed”, “payment stopped”, “referred to drawer,” etc are only species of that genus, etc. Therefore it appears that the judgment dated 5/7/2016 of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Muralidharan V. v. V.A. Kumaran and Another (2016 (3) KHC 845) has been...